What “there is little risk that players will stop playing for the Clippers” means is that it doesn’t matter who’s on contract, the simple fact that the Los Angeles Clippers are an active NBA team means that the value of said Clippers will continuously go up. In addition to this, the biggest thing for me is the fact that amortizing the cost of the time against the profits means that relatively newly bought/expanded teams are basically tax benefits.
I do think it’s relevant that the owners of the teams pay a smaller rate on more money than the players, like they said in the article, Lebron pays 39% on 35 million while Ballmer pays 12% on way more than that because of the ability to amortize the cost of the sale over that period of time.
Plus I don’t really think it’s a stretch to hate the rich, considering that the “you will own nothing and be happy” people, the Silicon Valley execs, all the people in charge of pushing the things that the people on this site hate, are the rich. There are very few rich people who openly identify with the GOP, at least publically anyway, plus it’s not like the rich aren’t the people bribing Congress through corporate lobbying to push legislation to favor them. But to be fair to you, that’s hating the actions of the rich for being evil pieces of shit, not what many leftists do and hate the rich for simply having that much money.
Forgot one thing, the depreciation/unpaid taxes that got amortized gets lumped in with the sale price of the team if the team ever gets sold, for the most part.
I didn’t click on the links within the article, but I probably should because that’s where a lot of explanations for statements tend to be, but I’ll do that once I’m clocked out.
What “there is little risk that players will stop playing for the Clippers” means is that it doesn’t matter who’s on contract, the simple fact that the Los Angeles Clippers are an active NBA team means that the value of said Clippers will continuously go up. In addition to this, the biggest thing for me is the fact that amortizing the cost of the time against the profits means that relatively newly bought/expanded teams are basically tax benefits.
I do think it’s relevant that the owners of the teams pay a smaller rate on more money than the players, like they said in the article, Lebron pays 39% on 35 million while Ballmer pays 12% on way more than that because of the ability to amortize the cost of the sale over that period of time.
Plus I don’t really think it’s a stretch to hate the rich, considering that the “you will own nothing and be happy” people, the Silicon Valley execs, all the people in charge of pushing the things that the people on this site hate, are the rich. There are very few rich people who openly identify with the GOP, at least publically anyway, plus it’s not like the rich aren’t the people bribing Congress through corporate lobbying to push legislation to favor them. But to be fair to you, that’s hating the actions of the rich for being evil pieces of shit, not what many leftists do and hate the rich for simply having that much money.
Forgot one thing, the depreciation/unpaid taxes that got amortized gets lumped in with the sale price of the team if the team ever gets sold, for the most part.
I didn’t click on the links within the article, but I probably should because that’s where a lot of explanations for statements tend to be, but I’ll do that once I’m clocked out.